For any legal minds out there, is the judge’s determination that intent needs to be proven, a correct determination or is he mis-interpreting the statute? Also, if intent has to be proven, is it enough to prove that deliberate fraud occurred or must that fraud be connected specifically to the defendants in the case? For example, if it can be proven that fraud occurred regarding signature validation but the person or persons responsible for that fraud can’t be pinpointed, does this statute allow for a remedy?
The judge set the parameters for the case in order that he would “have no choice” bug to acquit. He refused to look at the most damning fraud (i.e. signature verification) and then interprets the statute to require intent to be proven - a much higher threshold, especially if you’re not looking for it. No wonder he appeared so reasonable during the trial. He thought he had boxed himself in so that if he just “followed the law” he would have no choice but to acquit. But he didn’t count on Lake’s team actually proving their case, in spite of him.